CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND
`RESEARCH
`
`
`
`APPLICATION NUMBER:
`
`022567Orig1s000
`
`ADMINISTRATIVE and CORRESPONDENCE
`DOCUMENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`a) Is it a 505(b)(1), 505(b)(2) or efficacy supplement?
`
`
`
`
`
` YES
`
`
`
`NO
`
`
`
`EXCLUSIVITY SUMMARY
`
`
`NDA # 022567
`
`
`
`
`
`SUPPL #
`
`
`
`
`
`HFD # 130
`
`Trade Name Viibryd
`
`Generic Name vilazodone hydrochloride
`
`
`
`
`
`Applicant Name Trovis Pharmaceuticals LLC (formerly PGxHealth, LLC)
`
`Approval Date, If Known January 21, 2011
`
`PART I
`
`1. An exclusivity determination will be made for all original applications, and all efficacy
`supplements. Complete PARTS II and III of this Exclusivity Summary only if you answer "yes" to
`one or more of the following questions about the submission.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IS AN EXCLUSIVITY DETERMINATION NEEDED?
`
`
`
`If yes, what type? Specify 505(b)(1), 505(b)(2), SE1, SE2, SE3,SE4, SE5, SE6, SE7, SE8
`
`
`
`505(b)(1)
`
`c) Did it require the review of clinical data other than to support a safety claim or change in
`labeling related to safety? (If it required review only of bioavailability or bioequivalence
`data, answer "no.")
`
`
`
`
`
` YES
`
`
`
`NO
`
`
`
`If your answer is "no" because you believe the study is a bioavailability study and, therefore,
`not eligible for exclusivity, EXPLAIN why it is a bioavailability study, including your
`reasons for disagreeing with any arguments made by the applicant that the study was not
`simply a bioavailability study.
`
`
`N/A
`
`
`If it is a supplement requiring the review of clinical data but it is not an effectiveness
`supplement, describe the change or claim that is supported by the clinical data:
`
`N/A
`
`
`
`d) Did the applicant request exclusivity?
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Reference ID: 2895236
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`

`

`
`If the answer to (d) is "yes," how many years of exclusivity did the applicant request?
`
`
`
`
`
`
` YES
`
`
`
`NO
`
`
`
`Five years
`
`e) Has pediatric exclusivity been granted for this Active Moiety?
`
`
` YES
`
`
`
`NO
`
`
`
`
`
`N/A
`
`
` If the answer to the above question in YES, is this approval a result of the studies submitted in
`response to the Pediatric Written Request?
`
`
`
`IF YOU HAVE ANSWERED "NO" TO ALL OF THE ABOVE QUESTIONS, GO DIRECTLY TO
`THE SIGNATURE BLOCKS AT THE END OF THIS DOCUMENT.
`
`
`2. Is this drug product or indication a DESI upgrade?
`
`
`
`
`
` YES
`
`
`
`NO
`
`
`
`
`IF THE ANSWER TO QUESTION 2 IS "YES," GO DIRECTLY TO THE SIGNATURE BLOCKS
`ON PAGE 8 (even if a study was required for the upgrade).
`
`
`FIVE-YEAR EXCLUSIVITY FOR NEW CHEMICAL ENTITIES
`PART II
`(Answer either #1 or #2 as appropriate)
`
`1. Single active ingredient product.
`
`Has FDA previously approved under section 505 of the Act any drug product containing the same
`active moiety as the drug under consideration? Answer "yes" if the active moiety (including other
`esterified forms, salts, complexes, chelates or clathrates) has been previously approved, but this
`particular form of the active moiety, e.g., this particular ester or salt (including salts with hydrogen
`or coordination bonding) or other non-covalent derivative (such as a complex, chelate, or clathrate)
`has not been approved. Answer "no" if the compound requires metabolic conversion (other than
`deesterification of an esterified form of the drug) to produce an already approved active moiety.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` YES
`
`
`
`NO
`
`
`
`
`
`If "yes," identify the approved drug product(s) containing the active moiety, and, if known, the NDA
`#(s).
`
`
`NDA#
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Reference ID: 2895236
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`

`

`NDA#
`
`
`
`NDA#
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`If "yes," identify the approved drug product(s) containing the active moiety, and, if known, the NDA
`#(s).
`
`NDA#
`NDA#
`NDA#
`
`
`IF THE ANSWER TO QUESTION 1 OR 2 UNDER PART II IS "NO," GO DIRECTLY TO THE
`SIGNATURE BLOCKS ON PAGE 8. (Caution: The questions in part II of the summary should
`only be answered “NO” for original approvals of new molecular entities.)
`IF “YES,” GO TO PART III.
`
`
`PART III
`
`To qualify for three years of exclusivity, an application or supplement must contain "reports of new
`clinical investigations (other than bioavailability studies) essential to the approval of the application
`and conducted or sponsored by the applicant." This section should be completed only if the answer
`to PART II, Question 1 or 2 was "yes."
`
`
`1. Does the application contain reports of clinical investigations? (The Agency interprets "clinical
`investigations" to mean investigations conducted on humans other than bioavailability studies.) If
`the application contains clinical investigations only by virtue of a right of reference to clinical
`investigations in another application, answer "yes," then skip to question 3(a). If the answer to 3(a)
`is "yes" for any investigation referred to in another application, do not complete remainder of
`summary for that investigation.
`
`
`
`
`
`2. Combination product.
`
`If the product contains more than one active moiety(as defined in Part II, #1), has FDA previously
`approved an application under section 505 containing any one of the active moieties in the drug
`product? If, for example, the combination contains one never-before-approved active moiety and
`one previously approved active moiety, answer "yes." (An active moiety that is marketed under an
`OTC monograph, but that was never approved under an NDA, is considered not previously
`approved.)
`
`YES
`
`
`
`NO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THREE-YEAR EXCLUSIVITY FOR NDAs AND SUPPLEMENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`YES
`
`
`
`NO
`
`
`
`Reference ID: 2895236
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`

`

`(a) In light of previously approved applications, is a clinical investigation (either conducted
`by the applicant or available from some other source, including the published literature)
`necessary to support approval of the application or supplement?
`
`
` YES
`
`
`If "no," state the basis for your conclusion that a clinical trial is not necessary for approval
`AND GO DIRECTLY TO SIGNATURE BLOCK ON PAGE 8:
`
`
`
`NO
`
`
`
`
`IF "NO," GO DIRECTLY TO THE SIGNATURE BLOCKS ON PAGE 8.
`
`2. A clinical investigation is "essential to the approval" if the Agency could not have approved the
`application or supplement without relying on that investigation. Thus, the investigation is not
`essential to the approval if 1) no clinical investigation is necessary to support the supplement or
`application in light of previously approved applications (i.e., information other than clinical trials,
`such as bioavailability data, would be sufficient to provide a basis for approval as an ANDA or
`505(b)(2) application because of what is already known about a previously approved product), or 2)
`there are published reports of studies (other than those conducted or sponsored by the applicant) or
`other publicly available data that independently would have been sufficient to support approval of
`the application, without reference to the clinical investigation submitted in the application.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(b) Did the applicant submit a list of published studies relevant to the safety and
`effectiveness of this drug product and a statement that the publicly available data would not
`independently support approval of the application?
`
`
` YES
`
`
`
`NO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(1) If the answer to 2(b) is "yes," do you personally know of any reason to disagree
`with the applicant's conclusion? If not applicable, answer NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` YES
`
`
`
`NO
`
`
`
` If yes, explain:
`
`
`
`
`
`(2) If the answer to 2(b) is "no," are you aware of published studies not conducted or
`sponsored by the applicant or other publicly available data that could independently
`demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of this drug product?
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` If yes, explain:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` YES
`
`
`
`NO
`
`
`
`Reference ID: 2895236
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`

`

`
`
`Studies comparing two products with the same ingredient(s) are considered to be bioavailability
`studies for the purpose of this section.
`
`
`3. In addition to being essential, investigations must be "new" to support exclusivity. The agency
`interprets "new clinical investigation" to mean an investigation that 1) has not been relied on by the
`agency to demonstrate the effectiveness of a previously approved drug for any indication and 2) does
`not duplicate the results of another investigation that was relied on by the agency to demonstrate the
`effectiveness of a previously approved drug product, i.e., does not redemonstrate something the
`agency considers to have been demonstrated in an already approved application.
`
`
`(c)
`
`If the answers to (b)(1) and (b)(2) were both "no," identify the clinical
`investigations submitted in the application that are essential to the approval:
`
`
`
`a) For each investigation identified as "essential to the approval," has the investigation been
`relied on by the agency to demonstrate the effectiveness of a previously approved drug
`product? (If the investigation was relied on only to support the safety of a previously
`approved drug, answer "no.")
`
`Investigation #1
`
`Investigation #2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`
`
`
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`
`
`
`
`If you have answered "yes" for one or more investigations, identify each such investigation
`and the NDA in which each was relied upon:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Investigation #1
`
`Investigation #2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`
`
`
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`b) For each investigation identified as "essential to the approval", does the investigation
`duplicate the results of another investigation that was relied on by the agency to support the
`effectiveness of a previously approved drug product?
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`If you have answered "yes" for one or more investigation, identify the NDA in which a
`similar investigation was relied on:
`
`Reference ID: 2895236
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`c) If the answers to 3(a) and 3(b) are no, identify each "new" investigation in the application
`or supplement that is essential to the approval (i.e., the investigations listed in #2(c), less any
`that are not "new"):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4. To be eligible for exclusivity, a new investigation that is essential to approval must also have
`been conducted or sponsored by the applicant. An investigation was "conducted or sponsored by"
`the applicant if, before or during the conduct of the investigation, 1) the applicant was the sponsor of
`the IND named in the form FDA 1571 filed with the Agency, or 2) the applicant (or its predecessor
`in interest) provided substantial support for the study. Ordinarily, substantial support will mean
`providing 50 percent or more of the cost of the study.
`
`
`Investigation #1
`
`
`
`IND #
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`YES
`
`
`Investigation #2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a) For each investigation identified in response to question 3(c): if the investigation was
`carried out under an IND, was the applicant identified on the FDA 1571 as the sponsor?
`
`!
`!
`
`! NO
`! Explain:
`
`
`
`!
`!
`
`! NO
`! Explain:
`
`
`IND #
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(b) For each investigation not carried out under an IND or for which the applicant was not
`identified as the sponsor, did the applicant certify that it or the applicant's predecessor in
`interest provided substantial support for the study?
`
`
`YES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Investigation #1
`
`
`YES
`Explain:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Reference ID: 2895236
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`!
`!
`
`! NO
`! Explain:
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`

`

`
`
`Investigation #2
`
`
`YES
`Explain:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`!
`!
`
`! NO
`! Explain:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(c) Notwithstanding an answer of "yes" to (a) or (b), are there other reasons to believe that
`the applicant should not be credited with having "conducted or sponsored" the study?
`(Purchased studies may not be used as the basis for exclusivity. However, if all rights to the
`drug are purchased (not just studies on the drug), the applicant may be considered to have
`sponsored or conducted the studies sponsored or conducted by its predecessor in interest.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`YES
`
`
`
`NO
`
`
`
`If yes, explain:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`=================================================================
`
`Name of person completing form: Bill Bender
`Title: Senior Regulatory Project Manager
`Date: 01/24/2011
`
`
`Name of Office/Division Director signing form: Thomas Laughren, M.D.
`Title: Director, Division of Psychiatry Products
`
`
`
`Form OGD-011347; Revised 05/10/2004; formatted 2/15/05
`
`
`Reference ID: 2895236
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`

`

`---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`This is a representation of an electronic record that was signed
`electronically and this page is the manifestation of the electronic
`signature.
`---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`/s/
`----------------------------------------------------
`
`WILLIAM H BENDER
`01/24/2011
`
`THOMAS P LAUGHREN
`01/24/2011
`
`Reference ID: 2895236
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ACTION PACKAGE CHECKLIST
`
`APPLICATION INFORMATION1
`NDA Supplement #
`NDA # 022567
`BLA STN #
`BLA #
`Proprietary Name: Viibryd
`Established/Proper Name: vilazodone hydrochloride
`Dosage Form: Tablets
`RPM: Bill Bender
`
`Applicant: Trovis LLC
`Agent for Applicant (if applicable):
`
`Division: Division of Psychiatry Products
`
`If NDA, Efficacy Supplement Type:
`
` 505(b)(2)
` 505(b)(2)
`
` 505(b)(1)
` 505(b)(1)
`
`NDAs:
`NDA Application Type:
`Efficacy Supplement:
`
`(A supplement can be either a (b)(1) or a (b)(2)
`regardless of whether the original NDA was a (b)(1)
`or a (b)(2). Consult page 1 of the 505(b)(2)
`Assessment or the Appendix to this Action Package
`Checklist.)
`
`
`505(b)(2) Original NDAs and 505(b)(2) NDA supplements:
`Listed drug(s) relied upon for approval (include NDA #(s) and drug
`name(s)):
`
`Provide a brief explanation of how this product is different from the listed
`drug.
`
`If no listed drug, explain.
`
` This application relies on literature.
` This application relies on a final OTC monograph.
`
` Other (explain)
`
`
`Two months prior to each action, review the information in the
`505(b)(2) Assessment and submit the draft to CDER OND IO for
`clearance. Finalize the 505(b)(2) Assessment at the time of the
`approval action.
`
`On the day of approval, check the Orange Book again for any new
`patents or pediatric exclusivity.
`
`
`
`If pediatric exclusivity has been granted or the pediatric information in
`the labeling of the listed drug changed, determine whether pediatric
`information needs to be added to or deleted from the labeling of this
`drug.
`
`
`
` Updated Date of check:
`
` No changes
`
`(cid:153) Actions
`• Proposed action
`• User Fee Goal Date is January 22, 2011
`• Previous actions (specify type and date for each action taken)
`(cid:153) If accelerated approval or approval based on efficacy studies in animals, were promotional
`materials received?
`Note: Promotional materials to be used within 120 days after approval must have been
`submitted (for exceptions, see
`http://www fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guida
`nces/ucm069965.pdf). If not submitted, explain
`
`1 The Application Information section is (only) a checklist. The Contents of Action Package section (beginning on page 5) lists the
`documents to be included in the Action Package.
`
`Reference ID: 2895296
`Version 8/25/10
`
`
`
` AP
`
` TA CR
`
` None
`
` Received
`
`

`

`NDA/BLA #
`Page 2
`
`(cid:153) Application Characteristics 2
`
`Review priority:
` Priority
` Standard
`Chemical classification (new NDAs only):
`
`
` Fast Track
` Rolling Review
` Orphan drug designation
`
`
`
` Rx-to-OTC full switch
` Rx-to-OTC partial switch
` Direct-to-OTC
`
`
`NDAs: Subpart H BLAs: Subpart E
`
` Accelerated approval (21 CFR 314.510)
` Accelerated approval (21 CFR 601.41)
`
` Restricted distribution (21 CFR 314.520)
` Restricted distribution (21 CFR 601.42)
` Subpart I Subpart H
`
` Approval based on animal studies
` Approval based on animal studies
`
`
`
` MedGuide
` Communication Plan
` ETASU
` REMS not required
`
` Submitted in response to a PMR REMS:
` Submitted in response to a PMC
` Submitted in response to a Pediatric Written Request
`
`Comments:
`
`(cid:153) BLAs only: Ensure RMS-BLA Product Information Sheet for TBP and RMS-BLA Facility
`Information Sheet for TBP have been completed and forwarded to OPI/OBI/DRM (Vicky
`Carter)
`(cid:153) BLAs only: Is the product subject to official FDA lot release per 21 CFR 610.2
`(approvals only)
`(cid:153) Public communications (approvals only)
`• Office of Executive Programs (OEP) liaison has been notified of action
`• Press Office notified of action (by OEP)
`
`•
`
`Indicate what types (if any) of information dissemination are anticipated
`
` Yes, dates
`
` Yes
`
` No
`
`
`
` No
` No
`
` Yes
` Yes
` None
` HHS Press Release
` FDA Talk Paper
` CDER Q&As
` Other
`
`
`2 Answer all questions in all sections in relation to the pending application, i.e., if the pending application is an NDA or BLA
`supplement, then the questions should be answered in relation to that supplement, not in relation to the original NDA or BLA. For
`example, if the application is a pending BLA supplement, then a new RMS-BLA Product Information Sheet for TBP must be
`completed.
`
`Version: 8/25/10
`
`Reference ID: 2895296
`
`

`

`NDA/BLA #
`Page 3
`
`(cid:153) Exclusivity
`
`
`
`•
`
`Is approval of this application blocked by any type of exclusivity?
`
` No
`
` Yes
`
`• NDAs and BLAs: Is there existing orphan drug exclusivity for the “same”
`drug or biologic for the proposed indication(s)? Refer to 21 CFR
`316.3(b)(13) for the definition of “same drug” for an orphan drug (i.e.,
`active moiety). This definition is NOT the same as that used for NDA
`chemical classification.
`
` Yes
` No
`If, yes, NDA/BLA # and
`date exclusivity expires:
`
`•
`
`(b)(2) NDAs only: Is there remaining 5-year exclusivity that would bar
`effective approval of a 505(b)(2) application)? (Note that, even if exclusivity
`remains, the application may be tentatively approved if it is otherwise ready
`for approval.)
`
` Yes
` No
`If yes, NDA # and date
`exclusivity expires:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`(b)(2) NDAs only: Is there remaining 3-year exclusivity that would bar
`effective approval of a 505(b)(2) application? (Note that, even if exclusivity
`remains, the application may be tentatively approved if it is otherwise ready
`for approval.)
`(b)(2) NDAs only: Is there remaining 6-month pediatric exclusivity that
`would bar effective approval of a 505(b)(2) application? (Note that, even if
`exclusivity remains, the application may be tentatively approved if it is
`otherwise ready for approval.)
`• NDAs only: Is this a single enantiomer that falls under the 10-year approval
`limitation of 505(u)? (Note that, even if the 10-year approval limitation
`period has not expired, the application may be tentatively approved if it is
`otherwise ready for approval.)
`
` Yes
` No
`If yes, NDA # and date
`exclusivity expires:
`
` Yes
` No
`If yes, NDA # and date
`exclusivity expires:
`
` Yes
` No
`If yes, NDA # and date 10-
`year limitation expires:
`
`(cid:153) Patent Information (NDAs only)
`
`
`
`• Patent Information:
`Verify that form FDA-3542a was submitted for patents that claim the drug for
`which approval is sought. If the drug is an old antibiotic, skip the Patent
`Certification questions.
`
` Verified
` Not applicable because drug is
`an old antibiotic.
`
`• Patent Certification [505(b)(2) applications]:
`Verify that a certification was submitted for each patent for the listed drug(s) in
`the Orange Book and identify the type of certification submitted for each patent.
`
`21 CFR 314.50(i)(1)(i)(A)
` Verified
`
`
`21 CFR 314.50(i)(1)
` (iii)
` (ii)
`
` No paragraph III certification
`Date patent will expire
`
` N/A (no paragraph IV certification)
` Verified
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[505(b)(2) applications] If the application includes a paragraph III certification,
`it cannot be approved until the date that the patent to which the certification
`pertains expires (but may be tentatively approved if it is otherwise ready for
`approval).
`
`[505(b)(2) applications] For each paragraph IV certification, verify that the
`applicant notified the NDA holder and patent owner(s) of its certification that the
`patent(s) is invalid, unenforceable, or will not be infringed (review
`documentation of notification by applicant and documentation of receipt of
`notice by patent owner and NDA holder). (If the application does not include
`any paragraph IV certifications, mark “N/A” and skip to the next section below
`(Summary Reviews)).
`
`•
`
`
`
` •
`
`
`
`
`
`Version: 8/25/10
`
`Reference ID: 2895296
`
`

`

` Yes
`
` No
`
` Yes
`
` No
`
` Yes
`
` No
`
` Yes
`
` No
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NDA/BLA #
`Page 4
`
`
` •
`
`
`
`[505(b)(2) applications] For each paragraph IV certification, based on the
`questions below, determine whether a 30-month stay of approval is in effect due
`to patent infringement litigation.
`
`Answer the following questions for each paragraph IV certification:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(1) Have 45 days passed since the patent owner’s receipt of the applicant’s
`notice of certification?
`
`
`
`(Note: The date that the patent owner received the applicant’s notice of
`certification can be determined by checking the application. The applicant
`is required to amend its 505(b)(2) application to include documentation of
`this date (e.g., copy of return receipt or letter from recipient
`acknowledging its receipt of the notice) (see 21 CFR 314.52(e))).
`
` If “Yes,” skip to question (4) below. If “No,” continue with question (2).
`
`(2) Has the patent owner (or NDA holder, if it is an exclusive patent licensee)
`submitted a written waiver of its right to file a legal action for patent
`infringement after receiving the applicant’s notice of certification, as
`provided for by 21 CFR 314.107(f)(3)?
`
`
`If “Yes,” there is no stay of approval based on this certification. Analyze the next
`paragraph IV certification in the application, if any. If there are no other
`paragraph IV certifications, skip the rest of the patent questions.
`
`If “No,” continue with question (3).
`
`
`(3) Has the patent owner, its representative, or the exclusive patent licensee
`filed a lawsuit for patent infringement against the applicant?
`
`
`
`(Note: This can be determined by confirming whether the Division has
`received a written notice from the (b)(2) applicant (or the patent owner or
`its representative) stating that a legal action was filed within 45 days of
`receipt of its notice of certification. The applicant is required to notify the
`Division in writing whenever an action has been filed within this 45-day
`period (see 21 CFR 314.107(f)(2))).
`
`
`If “No,” the patent owner (or NDA holder, if it is an exclusive patent licensee)
`has until the expiration of the 45-day period described in question (1) to waive
`its right to bring a patent infringement action or to bring such an action. After
`the 45-day period expires, continue with question (4) below.
`
`(4) Did the patent owner (or NDA holder, if it is an exclusive patent licensee)
`submit a written waiver of its right to file a legal action for patent
`infringement within the 45-day period described in question (1), as
`provided for by 21 CFR 314.107(f)(3)?
`
`If “Yes,” there is no stay of approval based on this certification. Analyze the next
`paragraph IV certification in the application, if any. If there are no other
`paragraph IV certifications, skip to the next section below (Summary Reviews).
`
`If “No,” continue with question (5).
`
`
`
`
`Version: 8/25/10
`
`Reference ID: 2895296
`
`

`

`NDA/BLA #
`Page 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(5) Did the patent owner, its representative, or the exclusive patent licensee
`bring suit against the (b)(2) applicant for patent infringement within 45
`days of the patent owner’s receipt of the applicant’s notice of
`certification?
`
`
`
`(Note: This can be determined by confirming whether the Division has
`received a written notice from the (b)(2) applicant (or the patent owner or
`its representative) stating that a legal action was filed within 45 days of
`receipt of its notice of certification. The applicant is required to notify the
`Division in writing whenever an action has been filed within this 45-day
`period (see 21 CFR 314.107(f)(2)). If no written notice appears in the
`NDA file, confirm with the applicant whether a lawsuit was commenced
`within the 45-day period).
`
`If “No,” there is no stay of approval based on this certification. Analyze the
`next paragraph IV certification in the application, if any. If there are no other
`paragraph IV certifications, skip to the next section below (Summary
`Reviews).
`
`If “Yes,” a stay of approval may be in effect. To determine if a 30-month stay
`is in effect, consult with the OND ADRA and attach a summary of the
`response.
`
` Yes
`
` No
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CONTENTS OF ACTION PACKAGE
`(cid:153) Copy of this Action Package Checklist3
`
`yes
`
`Officer/Employee List
`(cid:153) List of officers/employees who participated in the decision to approve this application and
`consented to be identified on this list (approvals only)
`Documentation of consent/non-consent by officers/employees
`Action Letters
`
` Included
`
` Included
`
`(cid:153) Copies of all action letters (including approval letter with final labeling)
`
`Action(s) and date(s) Approval ,
`January 22, 2011
`
`Labeling
`(cid:153) Package Insert (write submission/communication date at upper right of first page of PI)
`• Most recent draft labeling. If it is division-proposed labeling, it should be in
`track-changes format.
`• Original applicant-proposed labeling
`• Example of class labeling, if applicable
`
`
`
`
`
`March 22, 2010
`
`
`
`3 Fill in blanks with dates of reviews, letters, etc.
`Version: 8/25/10
`
`Reference ID: 2895296
`
`

`

`NDA/BLA #
`Page 6
`
`
`(cid:153) Medication Guide/Patient Package Insert/Instructions for Use/Device Labeling (write
`submission/communication date at upper right of first page of each piece)
`
` Medication Guide
` Patient Package Insert
` Instructions for Use
` Device Labeling
` None
`
`• Most-recent draft labeling. If it is division-proposed labeling, it should be in
`track-changes format.
`
`
`
`• Original applicant-proposed labeling
`
`• Example of class labeling, if applicable
`(cid:153) Labels (full color carton and immediate-container labels) (write
`submission/communication date on upper right of first page of each submission)
`• Most-recent draft labeling
`(cid:153) Proprietary Name
`• Acceptability/non-acceptability letter(s) (indicate date(s))
`• Review(s) (indicate date(s))
`
`(cid:153) Labeling reviews (indicate dates of reviews and meetings)
`
`Administrative / Regulatory Documents
`
`(cid:153) Administrative Reviews (e.g., RPM Filing Review4/Memo of Filing Meeting) (indicate
`date of each review)
`(cid:153) All NDA (b)(2) Actions: Date each action cleared by (b)(2) Clearance Cmte
`(cid:153) NDA (b)(2) Approvals Only: 505(b)(2) Assessment (indicate date)
`
`(cid:153) NDAs only: Exclusivity Summary (signed by Division Director)
`(cid:153) Application Integrity Policy (AIP) Status and Related Documents
`http://www fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/ApplicationIntegrityPolicy/default.htm
`• Applicant is on the AIP
`• This application is on the AIP
`o
`If yes, Center Director’s Exception for Review memo (indicate date)
`o
`If yes, OC clearance for approval (indicate date of clearance
`communication)
`(cid:153) Pediatrics (approvals only)
`• Date reviewed by PeRC December 1, 2010
`If PeRC review not necessary, explain:
`• Pediatric Page/Record (approvals only, must be reviewed by PERC before
`finalized)
`(cid:153) Debarment certification (original applications only): verified that qualifying language was
`not used in certification and that certifications from foreign applicants are cosigned by
`U.S. agent (include certification)
`
`
`4 Filing reviews for scientific disciplines should be filed behind the respective discipline tab.
`Version: 8/25/10
`
`Reference ID: 2895296
`
`March 22, 2010
`
`
`
`
`
`January 19, 2011
`
`
`11/17/2010 Acceptability
`
` RPM
` DMEPA
` DRISK MedGuide 12/26/2010
`REMS Review 12/03/2010
` DDMAC 12/14/2010
` CSS 01/05/2011
` Other reviews
`
`RPM Filing Review 07/08/2010
`Regulatory Filing Letter
`05/28/2010
`
`
` Not a (b)(2)
` Not a (b)(2)
` Included
`
`
`
`
` Yes
`
` No
`
` No
`
` Not an AP action
`
` Yes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Included
`
` Verified, statement is
`acceptable
`
`

`

`NDA/BLA #
`Page 7
`
`(cid:153) Outgoing communications (letters (except action letters), emails, faxes, telecons)
`
`(cid:153) Internal memoranda, telecons, etc.
`(cid:153) Minutes of Meetings
`• Regulatory Briefing (indicate date of mtg)
`•
`If not the first review cycle, any end-of-review meeting (indicate date of mtg)
`• Pre-NDA/BLA meeting (indicate date of mtg)
`• EOP2 meeting (indicate date of mtg)
`• Other milestone meetings (e.g., EOP2a, CMC pilots) (indicate dates of mtgs)
`(cid:153) Advisory Committee Meeting(s)
`• Date(s) of Meeting(s)
`•
`48-hour alert or minutes, if available (do not include transcript)
`Decisional and Summary Memos
`(cid:153) Office Director Decisional Memo (indicate date for each review)
`
`Division Director Summary Review (indicate date for each review)
`
`Cross-Discipline Team Leader Review (indicate date for each review)
`
`PMR/PMC Development Templates (indicate total number)
`Clinical Information5
`
`(cid:153) Clinical Reviews
`• Clinical Team Leader Review(s) (indicate date for each review)
`• Clinical review(s) (indicate date for each review)
`• Social scientist review(s) (if OTC drug) (indicate date for each review)
`(cid:153) Financial Disclosure reviews(s) or location/date if addressed in another review
` OR
` If no financial disclosure information was required, check here
` review/memo explaining why not (indicate date of review/memo)
`(cid:153) Clinical reviews from immunology and other clinical areas/divisions/Centers (indicate
`date of each review)
`(cid:153) Controlled Substance Staff review(s) and Scheduling Recommendation (indicate date of
`each review)
`(cid:153) Risk Management
`• REMS Documents and Supporting Statement (indicate date(s) of submission(s